Paradigm Shifts and the Development of Agricultural ...

AfricaMechanize Discussion Paper 01 – April 2021 | 1

Paradigm Shifts and the Development of Agricultural Mechanization in Sub

Saharan Africa: A Case Study of Farm Power.

By Geoffrey C. Mrema

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The development of agriculture in Sub Saharan Africa [SSA]using higher levels of farm power has had a chequered history

over the seven decades from 1945 to 2015. Agricultural mechanization has been widely [and still is] supported in SSA by

farmers, local leaders, policy makers and politicians. It has, however, been a controversial issue in some circles including

among external experts and commentators. The objective of this paper is to provide a summary background review of the

paradigm shifts which have occurred concerning the role of farm power in SSA agriculture over the period 1945-2015.

The mechanization paradigm of the 1950s & 60s did postulate that the provision of farm power, for field operations like

land preparation, would be through mechanical technologies like tractors, without necessarily evolving through a

transitional stage of using draft animals. This was seen then [in the 1950s and early 1960s] as a feasible option given the

land abundance status of many countries in SSA and the difficulties of finding alternative sources of farm power - low

population made the hand tool technology not a viable option and prevalence of the tsetse fly making use of draft animals

difficult in large areas of SSA. The development programs of most countries in SSA in the 1950s & 1960s crafted by the

departing colonial authorities with the assistance of major multilateral development agencies like the FAO, World Bank

etc., were based on this paradigm.

From mid 1960s, there were, however, concerns raised by several influential experts and organizations on the impact and

efficacy of the tractorization paradigm in mechanization programs in developing countries. These included the

intermediate technology movement which advocated for a more evolutionary approach through the so called

intermediate or appropriate technologies; the International Labour Organization [ILO] whose concern was the effect the

use of tractors had on employment of rural labourers and the environmental movement concerned with the impact on the

environment. A global expert consultation was convened by FAO and OECD in Rome in February 1975 to resolve the

issues involved. The consultation recommended selective or appropriate mechanization, which combines hand tool,

animal and mechanically powered agricultural implements and equipment suited to the physical, cultural, economic, and

technological environment of the country concerned. A consensus was also reached on the manpower requirements for

mechanization and the need to treat farm power as an input in agricultural production just like fertilizers, seeds etc. FAO

was requested to develop guidelines to help member countries in developing their agricultural mechanization strategies

[AMS]. The AMS guidelines were developed by FAO through wide consultation and released in 1981 which has been

implemented by several countries since then.

A new paradigm was proposed in 1987, specifically linking the development of agricultural mechanization in SSA to the

evolution of the farming systems as they intensify from shifting cultivation to more permanent production systems. This

paradigm attributed the lack of progress in mechanization in SSA to, inter alia the public sector dominated tractorization

programs of the 1960s & 70s. A study published by the World Bank in 1987 recommended a shift of assistance from tractors

to draft animal power [DAP]. There followed then a wave of relatively well funded DAP programs and networks

throughout SSA implemented for much of the 1990s. However, by 2005 it became apparent that the DAP programs and

networks were not the panaceas to the mechanization problem in SSA while tractor imports had significantly declined in

all countries. A re-examination of the whole process of agricultural mechanization development then commenced which

culminated in the approval, in 2018, of the Framework for Sustainable Agricultural Mechanization in Africa F-SAMA with its

ten priority elements.

The priority element no. 1 of F-SAMA is therefore: Boosting farm power through innovative business models. The goal is

to ubiquitously provide mechanization services including farm power as an input in agricultural production through

commercially sustainable enterprises. It is posited that development of the innovative business models and systems

through which the enterprises are enabled to offer mechanization services such as primary land preparation for a

significant part of the year and across countries and sub regions is the sure way to efficiently and effectively, boost the

availability of farm power to all the farming groups be they small, medium, or large scale through environmentally and

socio-economically sustainable mechanisms. Highlights of other key issues like size of tractors, impact on the

environment, human resources and the institutional framework required for successful implementation of this element of

F-SAMA are discussed. The SSA countries need to remain focused on the long-term goal as well as exchange information

and experience through the Africa-Mechanize platform if they are to succeed in implementing this element of F-SAMA. *********************************


INTRODUCTION

1. THE DEVELOPMENT OF MECHANIZED AGRICULTURE USING HIGHER LEVELS OF FARM

POWER IN SUB SAHARAN AFRICA [SSA] HAS HAD A CHEQUERED HISTORY OVER THE

SEVEN DECADES PERIOD FROM 1945 TO 2015 [AUC/FAO, 2018]. DURING THIS PERIOD,

SIGNIFICANT EFFORTS HAVE BEEN DIRECTED AT IMPLEMENTING PROGRAMS WITH

THE OBJECTIVE OF IMPROVING THE UTILIZATION OF FARM POWER AS AN

INDISPENSABLE INPUT IN INCREASING AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY AND OVERALL

PRODUCTION [SEE FIG 1]. THIS HAS INVOLVED IMPROVED HAND TOOLS POWERED BY

HUMAN MUSCLES, THROUGH TO IMPLEMENTS USING DRAFT ANIMAL POWER [DAP] TO

MACHINERY & IMPLEMENTS POWERED BY INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES AND/OR

ELECTRIC MOTORS SUCH AS IN TRACTORS, COMBINE HARVESTERS, HAMMER MILLS

ETC. [SEE BOX 1 FOR STAGES IN AGRICULTURAL MECHANIZATION DEVELOPMENT]

2. Agricultural mechanization has been widely [and still is] supported in SSA by farmers, local

leaders, policy makers and politicians. It has, however, been a controversial subject in some circles

including among external experts and commentators [Dumont, 1966; de Wilde, 1967; Kline et al

1969; ILO, 1973; Pingali et al, 1987; IBRD, 1987; FAO,2008; FAO & UNIDO, 2009; FAO, 2013a&b].

During the 20th Century, the SSA region was land surplus, [and still is in some parts in the 21st

century considered to be a land surplus region] with comparatively low population density and in

most countries, wages remain relatively low (Binswanger, 1986; IBRD, 1987; FAO, 2015).

3. SSA is also the continent which is located almost entirely in the tropics thus making any farm work,

relying entirely on human muscles, to be ergonomically quite difficult and arduous [Passmore &

Durnin, 1955; Boshoff & Minto,1974]. This is particularly the case for the power intensive field

operations like primary land preparation using the hand hoe and hence the call by African Union

Commission [AUC] to confine the hand-hoe to the museum and relieve the farmer of the drudgery

associated with hand hoe tillage common on over 60% of the cultivated land as of 2015 [AUC/FAO,

2016]. The AUC also acknowledges the fact that if mechanization is to succeed in SSA then it must

be sustainable – commercially, environmentally, and socio-economically [See Box 2 for the Ten

Elements of F-SAMA- Framework for Sustainable Agricultural Mechanization in Africa].

4. Reflecting widespread acceptance that mechanization is desirable, the agricultural development

plans of many governments in the emerging independent African nations in the 1950s and 1960s

[and indeed even in Asia and Latin America], emphasized transforming the agriculture sector

through mechanization based on tractorization, among other things. These plans included, for

example, the Swynnerton plan in Kenya of 1954 as well as plans developed by the World Bank in

Tanzania [then known as Tanganyika] (IBRD, 1960), FAO in Nigeria (FAO, 1966) and national

experts in Ghana (Ghana, 1962), among others.

5. The objective of this paper is to provide a summary background review of the issues covered

during the development of the ten elements of the F-SAMA focusing specifically on the priority

element no 1: Boosting farm power through innovative business models. The paper provides an

analysis of the paradigm shifts which have occurred over the past several decades in the process

of assisting SSA countries in increasing the availability of farm power as an important component

of the agricultural mechanization inputs necessary for increasing agricultural productivity and

overall production in the region. The impact of these paradigm shifts on the quest of the SSA region

to attain progress in agricultural mechanization is discussed. The paper has been specifically

prepared to facilitate the discussions during the AfricaMechanize Webinar 3 session on the priority

element no 1 of F-SAMA.


Figure 1. The four phases of Africa’s agricultural mechanization evolution

THE TRACTORIZATION PARADIGM

6. The first mechanization paradigm was the one, which advocated for the provision of farm power,

for field operations like land preparation, through mechanical technologies like tractors, without

necessarily evolving through a transitional stage of using draft animals i.e., direct tractorization.

This was seen then [in 1950s and early 1960s] as a feasible option given the land abundance status

of many countries in SSA and the difficulties of finding alternative sources of farm power - low

population made the hand tool technology not a viable option and prevalence of the tsetse fly

making use of draft animals difficult in large areas of SSA.

7. The tractorization paradigm was justified and supported then, notwithstanding the failure of one

of the largest mechanized agriculture projects ever attempted in the world which was implemented

in SSA – the Groundnut Scheme in Tanganyika [GST] in 1946-52 [Wood, 1950; Lord, 1963; Johnson

& Ruttan, 1994; Rizo, 2004; and Esselborn, 2013]. This failure was attributed to, among other things,

poor planning coupled with the use of inappropriate mechanical technologies and implements as

well as biological and agronomical constraints. The successful adoption of tractors by the European

settler farmers in eastern and southern Africa during 1945-65 reinforced the case for the

tractorization paradigm. Also, early indications of success in commercial agricultural production

by indigenous African small and medium scale farmers [SSFs & MSFs] in several settlement

schemes which had been established in parts of eastern, southern, and west Africa during the 1950s

& 60s reinforced the case for the tractorization approach [Mayne (1954, 1955 &1956); deWilde, 1967;

Kates et al 1969; Kline et al, 1969; Anthony, 1970; Maina & MacArthur,1970; Bunting, 1970; Gemiill

& Eicher, 1973].


Box 1: Stages in agricultural mechanization development

Box 2. The ten priority elements of the Framework for SAMA [F-SAMA]

The framework for SAMA has ten priority elements with - eight of them clustered around three sustainability

pillars [Commercial, Environmental and Socio-economic] and two elements are overarching and cut across. Each

element has several options, and it is up to countries and sub-regions to decide on which one to pursue

depending on prevailing local conditions. The ten elements are:

A. UNDER THE COMMERCIAL SUSTAINABILITY PILLAR: Element 1: Boosting farm power through appropriate technologies and innovative business models. Element 2: Promoting innovative financing mechanisms for agricultural mechanization. Element 3: Building sustainable systems for manufacture and distribution of agricultural mechanization

inputs. Element 4: Sustainable mechanization across agri-food value chains

Element 5: Innovative systems for sustainable technology development and transfer. B. UNDER THE ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY PILLAR:

i. Element 6: Sustainable transformation of land preparation and crop/animal husbandry practices C. UNDER SOCIO-ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY

i. Element 7: Social sustainability and the roles of small-scale farmers, women and youth ii. Element 8: Human resources development and capacity building for SAMA D. OVERARCHING ELEMENTS FOR SAMA: i. Element 9: Need for a long-term vision: Policy and strategy issues. ii. Element 10: Creating sustainable institutions for regional cooperation and networking.

[from pg. 82-83 of FAO & AUC, 2018].


8. The tractors and implements were supplied through the private sector with the main global

manufacturers establishing their own franchises of dealers etc. throughout the SSA countries and

the local financial institutions were actively involved in providing credit. Government managed

and operated Tractor Hire Schemes [THS] were established in areas where the private sector was

not strong and in several countries state farms were established to produce cereal grains. The

tractors were used in the production of many commodities - maize, rice, wheat, sorghum and

millets, pulses as well as cash crops like cotton, sisal, sugar cane, tea, and coffee. In most cases the

tractors were used for primary land ploughing and harrowing with, in many cases, subsequent

operations like planting and weeding being done by a combination of hand tools and/ or draft

animals [deWilde, 1967; Anthony, 1970; Bunting, 1970; Gordon, 1970; Lele, 1976; Gohlich, 1984].

9. Tractor numbers in use in SSA increased from 1945 and by 1960 SSA had more tractors in use than

any of the other developing country regions/continents [Fig 2]. Most of the tractors were privately

and/or cooperatively owned and managed with those under government THS being less than 10%

of the national fleet [Kolawole, 1972; Muchiri & Mbara, 1991, Kaul, 1991; Mrema, 1991].

Figure 2. Tractor use by region, 1961–2000.

THE INTERMEDIATE TECHNOLOGY PARADIGM

10. There were, however, concerns raised by several influential experts and organizations, from mid-

1960s, on the impact and efficacy of the tractorization paradigm in mechanization programs in the

developing countries. These concerns were raised mostly for programs in Asia but also on those

in SSA and Latin America. They included:

A prominent French rural development expert and politician, Professor Rene Dumont, in his

famous 1996 book, False Start in Africa stated: ‘The problem of mechanization is crucial because

African elites are seduced by the idea of modern machines. It is difficult to convince them that agricultural

progress does not depend on immediate and complete mechanization…. It is not that mechanization is

1 Asia includes the People’s Republic of China, Japan, and India as well as Oceania and Pacific countries. 2 North America includes United States, Canada, Bermuda, and Greenland. 3 Sub-Saharan Africa includes all countries on the continent except North African Arab countries (Algeria, Morocco,

Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, and Sudan). 4 Europe includes ex-USSR up to 1990, thereafter including the Russian Federation and Ukraine and the Baltic States.

ex-Asian Soviet Republics are excluded. 5 LAC includes Latin America and the Caribbean. 6 Near East includes all mid-Eastern countries and North African Arab countries Source: FAOSTAT/AGS (2004).


impossible on African soil. Machines will be in wide use in the future, but there are still too many obstacles

……’ [Dumont, 1966]. The ideas propounded by Professor Dumont, where he was critical of the

rapid tractorization policies promoted in some African countries in the 1960s, epitomized the

framework for agricultural mechanization then advocated by the French Colonial and post-

colonial systems. This was based on an evolutionary approach whereby the farm power

situation was expected to evolve gradually from the hand tool technology through animal

powered implements to mechanically powered machinery and equipment over several decades

if not centuries [Dumont, 1966; Carrilon & LeMoigne, 1975; Mazoyer & Roidart, 2006].

The intermediate technology movement which was becoming an influential voice in forums on

the development agenda also opposed the tractorization paradigm citing several reasons –

balance of payments, creating unemployment and other social concerns. They therefore

advocated for more intermediate technologies such as improved hand tools, DAP etc. as an

alternative to tractorization both in the short and medium term. The book Small is Beautiful by

renowned economist Dr. A. Schumacher, which advocated for intermediate technologies, was

highly influential especially to those in developed countries who advocated for the intermediate

technology paradigm in agricultural development. Many Intermediate/Appropriate

Technology [IT/AT] centers were established throughout SSA and in Asia to develop and

transfer such technologies during 1970 to 2000. [Eicher & Baker, 1982; IRRI, 1983; Moens &

Siepmann, 1984; Starkey, 1988; FAO, 2008].

During 1970–1973, the International Labor Organization (ILO) of the United Nations [UN]

undertook several case studies on mechanization in the developing world – the reports of which

had a major impact on policy debates on tractorization. The ILO studies supported the concerns

expressed by, among others, the intermediate technology movement, that introduction of

tractors and other mechanically powered machinery and implements was leading to serious

unemployment of farm laborers and workers in all the four continents of the developing world

(ILO, 1973). These studies reinforced the case of those who were questioning the rationale of

development strategies that emphasized mechanization and advanced mechanical technologies

in agriculture.

The first global oil price hikes of 1973, which ostensibly made use of tractors appear even more

uneconomical in the developing world, especially for the smallholder sector [Makhijani &

Poole, 1975; Fluck & Baird, 1979; Stout, 1979] strengthened the case against the tractorization

paradigm. This did significantly strengthen the case in support of the use of improved hand

tools, draught animal technology and other renewable forms of energy. The poor performance

of government-sponsored and operated tractor hire schemes [THS] in several developing

countries further weakened the arguments for the tractorization paradigm [Seager &

Fieldson,1984]. This is notwithstanding the fact that number of tractors in Government operated

THS was less than 10% of the total number in use in the national tractor fleets in most SSA

countries [Kaul, 1991].

11. In response to the growing criticism of tractorization paradigm, supporters of mechanization

scorned the opponents who especially feared creation of unemployment and compared them to

the Luddites in England in the nineteenth century, who smashed textile machinery for fear it would

create unemployment. They argued that if agriculture in developing countries is perceived as a

“gigantic programme” for relieving unemployment, then these countries would continuously face

hunger and massive starvation. On the issue of the high amount of energy required for operating

these tractors, the proponents of mechanization argued that the fossil fuels used in agricultural

machinery, even in the most advanced countries, accounted for less than 5 percent of the total

energy used in agricultural production [Kline et al. 1969; Esmay and Faidley, 1972; Khan, 1972;

Stout, 1974; Fluck & Baird, 1979, Adams,1988].


TOWARDS A CONSENSUS – SELECTIVE /APPROPRIATE

MECHANIZATION PARADIGM

12. By 1970, it was apparent that the role of modern mechanization technologies in agricultural

development in the developing countries, was in many cases, a controversial issue. This was

particularly the case on the role of farm power in agricultural development. The controversy was

such that conflicting advice was being proffered to developing countries with, at times, two UN

technical agencies [e.g., FAO and ILO] taking diametrically opposite views on the ubiquitous use

of tractors.

13. To bridge the gap between the two viewpoints among policy makers and development specialists,

FAO and the OECD convened an Expert Consultation on the Effects of Farm Mechanization on

Production and Employment in February 1975 in Rome, Italy to discuss the issues involved (FAO,

1975). The experts at the consultation agreed that:

Farm mechanization should lead to increased production while reducing the drudgery

associated with performing agricultural tasks using hand tool technology. With respect to its

unemployment effects, however, the experts noted that there were so many variables that could

affect employment in agriculture that it was extremely difficult to isolate the effects of farm

mechanization. They concluded that urgent action was required to determine whether

continued growth in farm mechanization was “socially desirable”, which could only be done

by conducting field studies in the countries concerned.

The consultation then recommended appropriate mechanization, which combines hand tool,

animal and mechanically powered agricultural implements and equipment suited to the

physical, cultural, economic, and technological environment of the country concerned.

Further, the need to train manpower for all aspects of agricultural mechanization programmes

was highlighted, noting specifically that “manpower training requirements for extension in the

use, or introduction of farm mechanization based on animal power were considerable,

particularly if attempts are made to introduce draught animals in areas where there was no

tradition of animal husbandry and use of draught animals.” There were also recommendations for developing countries to formulate agricultural

mechanization policies and develop strategies for their implementation, and for carrying out

research in agricultural mechanization within the national agricultural research systems.

Finally, there were specific recommendations to FAO, particularly on the need for developing

guidelines for determining and evaluating appropriate forms and levels of farm mechanization

to suit different ecological, social, and economic conditions of the developing countries.

It was suggested that FAO provide support to governments in setting up advisory services in

this field, strengthening its information services to provide multidisciplinary information on

agricultural mechanization.

14. Following this 1975 Rome Expert Consultation, FAO did convene several other technical

consultations and meetings to reach a consensus on the role of mechanization [specifically farm

power] as an input in agricultural and rural development. These consultations did culminate in the

fifth meeting of the Committee on Agriculture [COAG] of the FAO Council held in April 1979

where a consensus was reached that agricultural mechanization was an indispensable input to

rural development. This therefore led to the second major Paradigm as defined by the 1975

Consultation: SELECTIVE or APPROPRIATE MECHANIZATION based on the level of power

input per hectare, be it from the muscles of humans and/or draft animals OR from mechanical

technologies. Thus, progress in mechanization thereafter has been measured in terms of available

total power per hectare [hp/acre or kW/ha].

15. Papers by Professor Giles of North Carolina University [Giles (1966 & 1975)] did provide the

conceptual framework and justification for inclusion of farm power together with the biochemical


inputs [fertilizers, improved seeds, and crop protection pesticides] as being a ‘first-generation’

factor in the process of transformation of farming and agriculture in general through the green

revolution. [ Mellor, 1998; Ruttan,1998; and Reardon, 1998]. The concept of minimum power per

hectare became the norm in agricultural mechanization strategy formulation- in his 1975 paper

Giles recommended a minimum of 0.5hp/ha from different sources [human; draft animals and

mechanical power]. [See Table 1 for Projections 2005 to 2050 of kW/ha for India]

16. The Guidelines for agricultural mechanization strategy [AMS] were developed by FAO and were

technically reviewed extensively and subsequently approved by the Committee on Agriculture

[COAG] of the FAO Conference in 1981. They were released as FAO Agricultural Services Bulletin

No. 45 entitled Agricultural Mechanization in Development: Guidelines for Strategy Formulation

[FAO, 1981]. The main objective of these AMS guidelines was to define and put in proper

perspective the relationship between agricultural mechanization and overall national

development objectives in the developing countries and to provide technical guidelines for

appropriate mechanization strategy formulation.

17. While these guidelines were not meant to provide a ‘cookbook’ recipe that could be applied to

every development situation pertaining to agricultural mechanization, it nevertheless has

remained the main basic reference document for technical guidance in mechanization strategy

formulation over the past four decades. It was extensively used in Asia region during 1975-2015

under the Regional Network for Agricultural Mechanization [RNAM] now CSAM {FAO-RAP,

2014]. During the three decades, 1985-2015, FAO has provided technical support to many countries

in Africa and elsewhere helping them to develop their AMSs.

Table 1: Projections for mechanization in India (Singh, 2013)

Item 2005 2015 2030 2050

Agricultural workers (millions) 230 280 340 350

Draught animals (millions) 53 37 18 8

Tractors (millions) 3.0 4.5 6.0 7.0

Power tillers (thousands) 152 250 400 500

Diesel engines (millions) 6.4 7.3 7.8 8.5

Electric motors (millions) 17 25 35 40

Power (kW/ha) 1.5 2.2 3.5 4.5

NEW IDEAS AND PARADIGM DURING 1985-2005

18. A new paradigm for agricultural mechanization in SSA emerged from the Pingali et al (1987)

study published as a World Bank publication by the John Hopkins University Press and entitled:

Agricultural Mechanization and the Evolution of Farming Systems in Sub-Saharan Africa. It

was conceptually anchored on earlier work by Boserup, 1965 & Ruthernberg, 1980 and associated

with a previous study on economics of tractor use in Asia by Binswanger, 1978. The Pingali et al

1987 book was followed by a World Bank report entitled: IBRD (1987): Agricultural

Mechanization: Issues and Options -The World Bank, Washington DC. {85 pages] prepared by

Hans Binswanger and Graeme Donovan with assistance of Raymond Fabre and Pabru Pingali.

19. The IBRD (1987) report as well as the Pingali et al (1987) book, had several recommendations which

appear to have inordinately influenced the policies and priorities on agricultural mechanization of

the World Bank and several other development and donor agencies during the two decades period

from 1987 to 2007. Both the Pingali et al 1987 and IBRD (1987) reports were particularly critical of

encouraging increased use of tractors in agriculture in SSA and the developing countries in general

and instead recommended use of what they called appropriate technologies such as DAP.

20. The conceptual framework for the Pingali et al 1987 was anchored on the assumption that the

increase in overall demand for mechanization in SSA was likely to have been driven by the


intensification of farming systems and by broader economic transformation. From the literature

on farming systems evolution (Boserup 1965; Ruthernberg 1980) they then suggest that the demand

for mechanization is linked to the process of intensification of the farming systems—characterized

by more frequent land preparation and a shortened fallow period—driven by population growth

and market development.

21. Pingali et al 1987 recommended that the indicator of the level of farming system intensification is

the “R-value,” which was proposed by Ruthernberg (1980), and which measures the share of

cultivated area in a particular year to total agricultural land. Countries or areas with a high R value,

they posited indicated that they have increasing farming system intensity and hence higher

demand for overall farm power inputs, which could be supplied by human, animal, or mechanical

powers. However, this process is also accompanied by economic transformation, which raises the

relative price of rural labor, leading to an increased demand for mechanical technologies that can

substitute for labour.

22. However, other socio-economists such as Darrity 1980 has suggested that, the Boserup, 1965 and

Ruthernberg, 1980 analysis of farming systems, as interpreted by Pingali et al 1987, for

mechanization in SSA, is more suitable for analysis of farming systems which are still at the

exceedingly early stages of development and which are still practising shifting agriculture [or

‘primitive agriculture’ in 18th & 19th century as Darrity, 1980 defines it]. Morrison 2006 compares

the Boserup, 1965 analysis to what pertained in India during pre-colonial times in the 18th century.

The Boserup, 1965 analysis may thus not be that relevant in defining the process of mechanization

in farming systems which are evolving to higher levels of mechanized agriculture involving

internal combustion engines as it is occurring in SSA during the 4th quarter of 20th century and 1st

quarter of 21st Century.

23. Further, to be able to plan and formulate mechanization strategies and projects for a specific

area/district/country one would have to be able to compute the ‘R’ – Ruthernberg values. Given

the paucity of data in most SSA countries it would be quite difficult to get these R values. It is also

important to note that the Pingali et al (1987) study was undertaken during the early part of the

third quarter of the 20th Century when the farming systems [FS] as well as the intermediate

technology [IT] movements & paradigms were in vogue in the agricultural development arena

[Eicher & Baker, 1982; Collinson, 2001]. Further, at that time there were no Divisions of Agricultural

Mechanization & Engineering Services [DAMES] operating in most of the countries in the SSA

region. As a follow up to the FAO (1981) recommendations and guidelines on agricultural

mechanization strategy, the DAMES were established in most SSA countries during the period

1990 to 2010 and they are staffed mostly by agricultural engineers who are more conversant with

kW/ha rather than the ‘R’ values.

RESPONSE OF SSA TO THE NEW IDEAS & PARADIGM

24. FAO and other technical agencies such as the Commonwealth Secretariat [COMSEC] in London

both of which had provided technical support to agricultural mechanization programs [including

for tractor projects] implemented by Ministries of Agriculture [MoAs] in most African countries in

1960-80 were particularly put in an invidious position by the IBRD (1987) and Pingali et al 1987

papers. Likewise, the MoAs were in a quandary as the recommendations of Pingali et al (1987) on

tractor mechanization were against the advice they had received over a long period from the

international technical agencies like FAO & COMSEC and even the World Bank itself [IBRD, 1960,

1981 & 1989].

25. FAO had weathered an earlier thrust against use of the tractor in Third World agriculture [due to

its, allegedly, unemployment effects] which was led by a sister UN agency [ILO - the International

Labour Organization] in the early 1970s [Clayton, 1973, ILO, 1973] as explained above. FAO had


done this through organizing a ‘global expert consultation’ on ‘Mechanization and Employment’

in Rome in 1975 [FAO/OECD, 1975] where a consensus was reached that the use of tractors did not

necessarily lead to increased unemployment overall and the need for member countries to be

provided with technical guidelines to facilitate the formulation of agricultural mechanization

strategies. FAO had by 1980, developed these technical guidelines and was in the process of

piloting their implementation in several countries in Asia and Africa [FAO, 1981]. Surprisingly to

FAO, neither the proceedings of the global expert panel consultation [FAO/OECD, 1975] nor the

guidelines developed for strategy formulation [FAO,1981] were even cited in the Binswanger,

{1978]; IBRD (1987) and Pingali et al, 1987 reports/publications.

26. When the Pingali et al (1987) document as well as the IBRD 1987 one, were released, it took some

time before their impact was felt in the operational side on implementation of mechanization

programs. The ideas in Pingali et al (1987) were quite new especially to those who were responsible

for policy and strategy for agricultural mechanization including project implementation. These

were largely agricultural engineers newly graduated from universities in Europe and North

America and were not that familiar with the theories of Boserup and Ruthernberg which were

based on what Professor Darrity of Duke University has characterized as ‘Anthropological

Economics’ [Darrity, 1980]. Even the farming systems approach was then, in mid 1980s quite new

in SSA and pilot projects were being implemented by research divisions of the Ministries of

Agriculture with donor assistance in some countries in SSA [Eicher & Baker, 1982; Collinson, 2001].

27. It is also important to recognize that many of the mechanization policies and as well as

programs/projects implemented in the 1960s by most SSA countries had been formulated with

technical support from the main international development agencies such as FAO; ILO; UNDP;

World Bank etc. as part of the rolling five-year national development programs [deWilde, 1967;

Bunting, 1970; FAO, 1975 & 1981; COMSEC, 1990]. Technical guidance was therefore being

provided to member countries in accordance with what was then accepted development

paradigms for agricultural mechanization. ****Much of the technical knowledge on mechanization

was a carry-over of what had been developed during the last years of colonial rule in the 1950s &

60s as well as experience gained in implementation of similar programs in other parts of the World

after the Second Word War [Mayne, 1954; 1955 & 1956; deWilde, 1967; Hall, 1968; Kline et al 1969;

Bunting, 1970; Oluwasami, 1975; Eicher & Baker, 1982; Crossley & Kilgour, 1983; Seager et al 1984,

Gibb, 1988].

28. What was being proposed under the Pingali et al (1987) framework was, therefore, a new way of

thinking about agricultural mechanization and had not been part of the knowledge and advice

provided by the technical agencies. Indeed, the Pingali et al 1987 paradigm and framework were

in many instances contradicting what FAO had just published, in 1981, as a guideline to its member

countries on Agricultural Mechanization strategy formulation and the content of its technical

advice to member countries in developing their strategies. These FAO Guidelines [FAO, 1981] had

been developed following the consensus reached at the Global Consultation on Agricultural

Mechanization and Employment which FAO & OECD had organized in 1975 in Rome,

[FAO/OECD, 1975] as explained above.

29. It is also important to recognize that agricultural mechanization policies and strategies were and

are still being handled in most SSA countries by agricultural engineering/mechanization [DAMES]

divisions in collaboration with the planning divisions of the ministries of agriculture. These

DAMES were mostly then and are still staffed by agricultural engineers who would have found it

difficult to follow the proposals by Pingali et al as it was contrary to their basic training. The

Ministries of Agriculture requested for clarifications from the World Bank as well as from the

technical agencies on what they should follow between the two options. Further, even in the main

donor agencies there was confusion on what was the best approach in this regard [COMSEC,1990].


30. Ministers of Agriculture of the countries in the Commonwealth of Nations requested the

Commonwealth Secretariat to convene an expert consultation to discuss the contradictions on the

technical advice being provided by the leading agencies [COMSEC, 1990]. An important point here

is that eight of the eleven countries covered in the Pingali et al (1987) field survey were English

speaking and/or members of the Commonwealth of Nations [Ethiopia; Botswana; Kenya; Tanzania;

Zambia; Nigeria and India as well as Cameroon which is partially English speaking]. The

Commonwealth Secretariat convened such a consultation workshop at the Ahmadu Bello

University in the northern Nigerian city of Zaria on 13 -17 August 1990.This workshop was

attended by 60 senior experts from 9 African countries [Botswana; Gambia; Ghana; Kenya; Lesotho;

Nigeria; Swaziland; Tanzania and Zambia] as well as representatives of GTZ; UK; UN-ECA/FAO

and India.

31. Resource persons had been commissioned to prepare overview papers and each country

representative was required to prepare a paper on the status of agricultural mechanization in their

respective countries focusing on success cases as well as failure ones. The resource papers included

those from FAO on Agricultural Mechanization Strategy Formulation: Procedures and Issues; India – on

Formulation and Implementation of Mechanization Policies in India; from GTZ on Small four-wheel

tractors for the tropics and sub tropics as well as an overview paper on the main issues on agricultural

mechanization in Africa specifically focusing on what was in the PBB framework.

32. Professor R. N. Kaul – an Indian National with long experience of agricultural mechanization

programs in SSA and Asia and who was then working [as an expatriate] as Professor of

Agricultural Engineering and Programme Leader of the Agricultural Mechanization Programme

at the Institute of Agricultural Research of the Ahmadu Bello University in Samaru, Zaria, Nigeria

was assigned the task of preparing the overview resource paper entitled: Agricultural

Mechanization in Africa: An Overview of Main Issues [Kaul 1991]. On the Pingali et al (1987)

report, Prof Kaul had the following remarks:

‘….. Pingali et al (1987) in a study of 30 tractor projects in Sub-Saharan Africa from 1945 –

1980 (7 small-holder; 13 Government Tractor hire schemes and 10 block cultivation

schemes) concluded “In many tractor project areas no tractors can be found today. Where any

tractors are still being used, their use is inevitably associated with rice cultivation. But even these

surviving tractors today are privately owned. The transition from the hand hoe to animal-draft power,

where its use is appropriate, continued to be made despite the emphasis on tractors. Of the seventeen

attempts to bypass animal traction for tractorization only three succeeded, all of them associated with

low-land rice cultivation schemes” Pingali et al 1987.’.

Thirty tractor schemes (with less than 3000 tractors total), spanning over a period of 35

years (1945-1980) and covering the entire SSA region is just a small sample for one to

conclude with such a blanket prescription. In addition, animal traction has been even less

successful despite over 80 years of extension effort………’. Kaul, 1991.

33. Eight case studies on status of agricultural mechanization were presented from seven African

countries [Botswana; Ghana; Kenya; Nigeria; Swaziland; Tanzania and Zambia] as well as from

India. Five of the 7 case studies were from countries which were covered in the Pingali et al 1987

rapid field survey. These papers gave a different picture of the status of agricultural mechanization

in those seven countries – being more objective and unbiased in contrast to the perspective

presented in Pingali et al, 1987. As an example, is the status of Government operated tractor hire

services – while these were operational in 1960s [and even then, had less than 10% of the tractor

fleets in all the countries], by mid 1980s most of them had been privatized with the tractors

thereafter being operated by the private sector. The case study from India presented by Dr S. K.

Misra – The Joint Commissioner in-charge of Agricultural Engineering Services at headquarters of

the All-India Ministry of Agriculture in New Delhi gave a different perspective of the agricultural


mechanization situation in India [Misra, 1991] compared to what had been presented in the

Binswanger 1978 paper on tractors in South Asia.

34. The report of the Workshop was published by the Commonwealth Secretariat as COMSEC (1990):

Report of a Workshop on Agricultural Mechanization in Commonwealth Africa: Zaria, Nigeria

13-17 August 1990. The technical papers presented were published separately by the

Commonwealth Secretariat in London under the Title: COMSEC (1991) Agricultural

Mechanization Policies and Strategies in Africa: Case Studies from Commonwealth African

Countries. Copies of the publication can be obtained from the Commonwealth Secretariat in

London, UK. Soft copies of all COMSEC Technical Publications can be accessed from the website

of the OECD in Paris.

35. In addition to endorsing the comments by Professor Kaul on the prescriptions of Pingali et al 1987

as summarized above, the workshop also, among other things, noted that:

“……Too often in SSA failed agricultural mechanization schemes have been subjected to cursory eco-

nomic review, without the required detailed technical analysis, whilst success cases have not been ade-

quately analysed and publicised.

Too often blanket prescriptions have been made based on very rudimentary data and flawed methodology.

There should not be blanket prescriptions to the African agricultural mechanization problem – the heter-

ogeneity of the agricultural systems must be appreciated, and this should be built in the process of agri-

cultural mechanization policy and strategy formulation……” [COMSEC, 1990 &1991].

36. The workshop did recommend the need to facilitate more information exchange on both failed and

successful mechanization projects as earlier recommended in the 1967 World Bank study led by Dr

de Wilde [de Wilde, 1967; COMSEC,1990]. Further, the Workshop noted the cautious approach and

recommendations on tractorization made during the deWilde mission in 1967 when public sector

operated THS were more common as compared to the prescriptive and negative recommendations

made by the Pingali et al team in 1987 when most public sector THS had been privatized [COMSEC,

1991].

IMPACT OF THE NEW PARADIGM ON AGRICULTURAL

MECHANIZATION DEVELOPMENT IN SSA

37. The net result of this new paradigm and the corresponding policies implemented, was a stagnation

and/or decline in numbers of tractors imported into the region. As reported in FAO, 2008 while in

1961 through to 1970 SSA had more tractors in use than Brazil, China, India, and Thailand by the

year 2000 India, China and Brazil had 6.9, 4.4, and 3.7 times the number of tractors in use in SSA

[including South Africa] [see Fig 3]. In 1998, the hand tool technology dominates land preparation

in 65% of the cultivated land in SSA compared to 20, 25, 30, and 40% in the Near East, Latin

America; South Asia; East Asia regions respectively [see Fig 4]. The number of tractors in use in

2000 in all SSA countries was almost equal to the number in Thailand which in 1990 had less than

20% of the number in SSA then. Annual imports of tractors in all the SSA declined from an average

of over 10,000 units in the early 1980s to under 3000 units by 1995. [See Fig 5]. This is particularly

important as the massive increase in the use of tractors in Asian agriculture which occurred during

the period 1975-2015 had disproved the findings of the Binswanger 1978 report on the economics

of tractor use in Asian agriculture [Singh, (2001; 2013); Verma, 2006; FAO-RAP, 2015]. [see fig 6 for

increases in tractor imports in Thailand, Pakistan; and tractors in use in India].

38. The IBRD (1987) report made specific recommendations to the World Bank and other donors to

discourage assistance for mechanization projects with tractor components and instead they should

focus their assistance to draft animal power and implements as well as the intermediate

technologies. Thereafter, during the period 1985 to 2005, there was active and large donor

supported programs of promoting DAP and other appropriate technologies in agriculture

throughout SSA [ Starkey, (1986); IBRD (1987 & 1989)]. National and regional animal traction


networks were established throughout SSA and heavily supported by donor agencies {Starkey,

1988 & 1998]. This was accompanied by a corresponding decrease in donor support to

mechanization programs with tractor components. Most countries in SSA were then implementing

the Economic Structural Adjustment Programs [ESAPs] with the support of the World Bank and

IMF and they were discouraged from investing in programs with tractor mechanization

components [IBRD, 1987 &1989].

39. This new paradigm appears to have significantly influenced policy options of the major donors on

assistance for agricultural mechanization programs with tractor components in SSA. This is

exemplified by, among others, the increased emphasis and funding for Draft Animal Power

[DAP] projects/programs during the period 1985 to 2005; Regional and sub-regional as well as

national networks on animal traction technology were established throughout SSA, donors

provided support to establish DAP research and extension programs and centres, several large

workshops and seminars on DAP were organized [WATNESA; ATNESA etc] as well as

publications were published during the period [Kjoerby,1983; Starkey and associates, 1985; 1986;

1989; Nwuba & Kaul, 1986]. Funding for projects with tractor components was reduced

significantly.

Fig. 3. Tractors in use in Africa compared in other developing countries.

40. Also, the Appropriate Technology/Intermediate Technology [AT/IT] movement became

prominent in the mechanization debate and activities in SSA. Many AT/IT centres and programs

20 25 3040

6520

25

30

40

25

6050

40

2010

Near East and North Africa

Latin America & Caribbean

S Asia E Asia Sub-Saharan Africa

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

%

Fig 4. Proportion of Land Cultivated by Different Sources of Farm Power - 1998

Tractor

DAP

Hand


funded by donors and national governments were established at national /regional levels

throughout SSA during the period 1975 to 2000 developing several types of prototypes [e.g., FMDU

in Botswana; RTDU in Kenya; AATP in Tanzania etc.]. The CGIAR system reduced its involvement

in agricultural engineering & mechanization research and the units for research in these area at the

founding IARCs [IRRI, IITA, ICRISAT etc] were phased out in the 1990s. These had been quite

active in the earlier years and were the ‘unsung heroes’ in terms of their contribution to the success

of the green revolution especially in Asia [Khan, 1972; Brader, 1994; Bell et al 1998; Okali et al 1997;

White, 2000; FAO,2008; Lantin, 2013; FAO-RAP (2014 & 2015)].

Figure 5. Imports of Tractors in SSA Countries [FAO/AGST2008]

Figure 6. Tractors in use in different Asian Countries [FAO/AGST-2008]

SSA - Imports of Tractors (excluding S. Africa)

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

72

74

76

78

80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98 0

Thailand - Nos of 2 wheel Tractors

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1995

Th

ou

san

ds

Thailand - Nos of 4 wheel tractors (15-85 hp.)

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1995

India - Numbers of 4 Wheel Tractors

-

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

Th

ou

san

ds

Pakistan - Numbers of 4 Wheel Tractors

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995


OTHER ISSUES ON PARADIGMS ON FARM POWER

Environmental Issues and Farm Power

41. There has always been a concern on the impact of increased mechanization on the environment in

Africa. As Colin Maher, a leading soil scientist in Eastern Africa noted in 1950; ‘……the grave erosion

which occurs on ploughland from time to time has often induced an ‘old timer’ to say ruefully that we should

never have put a plough into Africa’ [Maher, 1950]. Also, the environmental field in Africa as often

inspired by counter parts in Europe is particularly prone to passions as Anderson & Groove (1987)

noted ‘ …Much of the emotional as distinct from the economic investment which Europe made in Africa has

manifested itself in a wish to protect the natural environment as a special kind of ‘Eden’ for the purposes of

European psyche rather than a complex and changing environment in which people have had actually to

live…’ . During the colonial period the conservation movement was split between those who

focused on erosion problems on the lands farmed by indigenous natives and those who focused on

erosion issues on the large-scale commercial farms operated mostly by European settler farmers

[Tiffen et al 1994; Rowland (1974 & 1994); Kayombo & Mrema, 1998].

42. As noted in AUC/FAO, 2018, the conservation tillage technology has been adopted mostly by large

scale farmers in Eastern and Southern Africa [ACT, 2015 & 2017]. Also, the Conservation

Agriculture [CA] movement is gaining traction in SSA and has particularly strong views on

tillage/plowing of land which may influence policy on agricultural mechanization. The current

thrust is to convert from conventional tillage [CT] [practiced on 97% of cultivated land] to

conservation agriculture practiced on about 3% of cultivated land in SSA. The issue therefore is

more of the type of implements used rather than the power source. Several of the IARCs have

programs on CA in eastern and southern Africa even though there are divided opinions, among

key stakeholders of the CGIAR system, on extent of adoption and suitability of CA techniques to

small holder farmers in Africa and Asia as evidenced by the Nebraska Declaration of 2014 {(Baker

et al, (2006); Friedrich & Kassam, 2012; Friedrich, (2013), CGIAR (2013); Corbeels et al, (2014);

Stevenson et al (2014)]. These issues and concerns should be considered in agricultural

mechanization policies and strategies in Africa especially as they tend to impact on the type of farm

power used as well as human health issues [FAO-AUC, 2018].

43. The key environmental issue as related to sustainable agricultural mechanization in SSA is

concerned is to recognize the fact that all over the world conservation agriculture [CA] and

specifically conservation tillage [CT] has been successfully adopted where the farm power problem

has been solved. So far in SSA large scale farmers [LSFs] who have largely tackled the farm power

problem are increasingly adopting CT & CA because it makes economic sense for them to do so.

Medium Scale Farmers [MSFs] who in several countries are acquiring their own powered

machinery for their own farms and are offering mechanization hire services to other farmers [both

small and other medium] are likely to be the next adopters of CT and CA practices provided the R

& D system comes up with the required appropriate implements. As noted in Element 6 of F-SAMA

enhanced adoption of CA requires sustainable provision of minimum levels of farm power.

Tackling the farm power constraint is therefore critical for environmental sustainability. This is

particularly the case in those sub-regions of SSA where land preparation in over 80% of the

cultivated land is still done by the hand tool technology [Fig 7].

Small and Large Tractors Paradigm

44. Another issue which is being repeatedly stated by external actors as a fact is that African countries

use high horse-power tractors compared to Asia where, it is indicated that small tractors dominate.

There is a need to first define what are small tractors and what are large. Holtkamp (1989 & 1990)

defines small tractors as those under 26kW and they come either with one axle [hence 2 wheel-

tractor (2WT) or power tiller] or with two axles [hence small 4 wheel-tractor (4WT)] and the

medium and large 4-wheel tractors (4WT) with engines of over 26kW. The small 2WT or power


tillers have been tried in SSA in two waves, first in the 1960s when they failed miserably and the

second wave from 2005 with over 80% of them imported in to four African countries [Madagascar;

South Africa, Nigeria and Tanzania] where they appear to be successful in tillage of wetlands

[either irrigated or in floodplains] for paddy production and in general transportation in rural areas

with poor road infrastructure [IRRI, 1983; FACASI, 2015; Baudron et al 2015, IFPRI, 2020]. On the

other hand, there were 45 prototypes of the small 4WT developed in the 1960s-80s all over the

World including the Kabanyolo [Uganda] and Tinkabi [Swaziland], Bouyer {France] and Multi-

trac [Germany]. Only the Tinkabi and Bouyer reached a production level of about 1000 units by

mid 1980s [Gohlich, 1984; Holtkamp, 1989 & 1991].

45. In several recent papers & reports there are unverified and/or incorrect statements about these

small tractors especially on their power capacity and comparison of their acceptability/adoption in

Asia cf. their potential role and adoption in SSA [Diao et al 2020]. There has been considerable

research on soil mechanics and tillage related to, among other factors, the power requirements and

testing of different tillage implements in Africa over the past five decades (Boshoff 1966; Boshoff &

Minto, 1974; Willcocks & Twomlow,1992; FACASI, 2015). Let us use these research findings which

are based on fundamental principles of soil mechanics and engineering to decide on what type of

tractors and implements are suitable for SSA as recommended in the F-SAMA document

[AUC/FAO, 2018]. So far much of the advocacy for increased use of low horse-power tractors in

SSA appears to be based largely on socio-economic reasons coupled with inappropriate

comparison of the Asian and SSA situation and farming systems rather than on basic principles of

soil mechanics and engineering [AUC/FAO, 2018]. Besides the different sub-regions of SSA have

different power requirements given their soil conditions and level of development of the farm

power sector [see fig. 7 Farm Power in different regions of SSA].

Figure 7. Primary land preparation in Africa (2006)

Institutions and organizations for boosting Farm Power in SSA

46. The issue of the institutions and organizations needed for addressing the organizational, logistical and

managerial problems in the transition from essentially peasant and small scale dominated agriculture to

mechanized agricultural systems is critical. The AGS45 on AMS of FAO (1981) in chapter 11 on pg. 55

to 58 offers different models on Systems for Machinery Use.’ [FAO,1981]. Countries in SSA have

followed these guidelines to the extent possible. Recent research attention has been focused on the

models being piloted in Ghana and Nigeria with the AMSECs and AEHE [IFPRI, 2020]. But these

are basic units at district level which have been piloted in these two countries for less than a decade

and from an institutional perspective are still work-in- progress. It may therefore be too early to

draw lessons from them for scaling up elsewhere in SSA. Besides there are other institutional and


organizational models which have been tried elsewhere in SSA and/or Asia [e.g., block farms;

cooperatives; machine-rings; mechanization clusters etc.] for a much longer period and key lessons

could be drawn from them.

47. The key question, as noted in AUC/FAO, 2018, is what institutions and organizations would be

catalytic to the development of agricultural mechanization at national, sub-regional and regional

levels? What has worked elsewhere in SSA and Asia? Over the past 50 years several countries have

established strong DAMES at national level – what has been their impact cf. similar institutions

elsewhere [e.g. Asia]? What role did regional institutions in Asia such as

RNAM/APCAEM/CSAM/APO/AsDB as well as the UN and donor agencies play in the Asia

success cf. similar institutions in SSA [e.g., ARCT; ARCEDEM; AfDB]? The World Bank was in the

1980s pushing for the farming systems approach and/or Boserupian framework on evolution of

mechanization in SSA while FAO/UNDP/UNIDO had a different approach of AMSs – how did this

affect mechanization especially farm power in SSA? The CGIAR system has consistently been

spending 40-50% of its budget in SSA over the past 60 years - what role has it played in

mechanization of African agriculture cf. in Asia where there were strong programs for agricultural

mechanization in the 1960s to 80s at IRRI and ICRISAT? On the other hand, IITA the main IARC in

SSA phased out its agricultural engineering program from the 1980s – what impact has this had on

mechanization in SSA.

48. There is no question that farm power is an indispensable input for increasing agricultural

productivity and overall production. Studies by the Centre for Sustainable Agricultural

Mechanization [CSAM] of the Asia Pacific region do show clearly that farm power was and

remains a critical input in in increasing agricultural growth [FAO-RAP, 2015]. As Fan & Pardey,

1992 demonstrated in their seminal paper that farm power contributed 11.8% of growth in

agricultural output of P.R of China which occurred between 1965 to 1989 grater even the

contribution of irrigation which 3.3% [see Table2]. SSA needs to learn from such successful

development models if it is to break out of the cycle of low agricultural productivity and food

insecurity.

Table 2: Accounting for growth in agricultural output in China: 1965–1989 (Fan & Pardey, 1992)

Factor % Contribution to growth

Land -0.9

Irrigation 3.3

Labour 3.4

Farm power 11.8

Institutional change 13.8

Research 19.8

Fertilizer 21.3

Other factors 27.6

Total 100.0

Farm Power & Sustainability Issues

49. The issue of sustainability is critical to the success of Element 1 of the F-SAMA is important due

to the increasing global pressure for transformation of current agricultural production systems into

more sustainable ones and the initiatives undertaken in both the Asia Pacific and Africa regions to

develop frameworks for sustainable agricultural mechanization strategies over the past five

years [SAMS & F-SAMA respectively]. The SAMS and F-SAMA provide a longer-term vision of

how stakeholders see agricultural mechanization evolving in their respective regions whilst taking

cognizance of progress and developments in the sub sector over the past fifty years [FAO/CSAM,

2014 and AUC/FAO, 2018]. Given the high investment costs for farm power assets, it is important


that the consideration of sustainability goes beyond environmental sustainability issues to include

commercial and socio-economic sustainability.

50. The global experience on agricultural mechanization, shows that there are regions within countries

which are early adopters [by several decades in some cases] while other regions are late adopters

of mechanization technologies [e.g., Punjab in India with tractors and combine harvesters [Singh,

2013); Mbeya Region in Tanzania with power tillers (Mrema et al 2020); Central Tanzania with 4WT

(Shetto & Mkomwa, 2021)]and Northern Ghana {IFPRI, 2020]. Such early adopter regions are likely

to be able to support and commercially sustain agri-businesses specializing in the provision of

mechanization services within and/or across the national boundaries [Mrema et al 2020]. Given the

current low demand in the national markets, [for say tractors] in most countries in SSA, it may well

be prudent to plan for mechanization services and franchises at sub regional level. As noted in

FAO, 2008 of the 107,500 units of four-wheel tractors in use SSA [excluding South Africa] in 2000,

about 72% of them were concentrated in six countries with the remaining 28% spread in over 40

countries. Indeed, in some sub-regions [e.g., the SACU – Southern Africa Customs Union] the

franchises for agricultural machinery and implements are organized at sub-regional level to attain

economies of scale and scope and hence create more viable and sustainable enterprises. Sub-

regional markets may thus be the more sustainable option for agricultural mechanization supply

chains using the regional economic blocks as recommended in the SAMA framework [AUC/FAO,

2018].

51. Also, countries in SSA should consider provision of other services like, research and development;

testing of agricultural machinery and implements; setting of standards; as well as manufacturing

and trade activities at the sub-regional level to attain economies of scale and scope as recommended

in AUC/FAO, 2018. The experience of implementing such activities at the sub regional and regional

levels in Asia region should be invaluable to SSA countries. These issues should be given more

prominence as there are quite several national institutions in SSA which offer such services, and

which lack the critical mass of experts to be effective and are inadequately funded and equipped.

Highlights of lessons from Asia in operating such regional centres as APO; CSAM; testing and

standards bodies like ANTAM would be invaluable to SSA [FAO/UNIDO, 2010]. Also, there are

quite several pan-African institutions [such as the Inter-Africa Bureau of Animal Resources [AU-

IBAR] which has been quite successful in eradicating several livestock diseases which could offer

useful lessons on modalities of regional cooperation for solving development problems [FARA,

2014; AUC/FAO, 2018].

52. Over the past several decades the emphasis of governments, the international development

fraternity as well as the R & D systems has been directed at facilitating ownership by the small

farmer of farm power machinery and equipment. This has been done through designing,

manufacturing and promotion of equipment which can be sustainably owned by the farmer.

Further policy priority has been directed at provision of credit or other subsidies to enable the

farmer to procure such machinery and equipment which in rainfed agriculture he/she hardly fully

utilize throughout the year. The farmers are therefore forced to invest considerable resources on

machinery which they use of one month and store it for the remaining 11 months.

53. Perhaps more could be achieved if the research and development as well as technology transfer

agenda could be directed at creating entrepreneurs who are able to offer mechanization services

throughout the year and are able to sustainably finance their enterprises in addition to offering the

services at affordable and economic prices such as Mr. Kingangi in Kenya as explained in Box 3

Efficient Tractor Hire Services in Kenya. Such entrepreneurs are emerging in several parts of SSA –

Southern Africa: Eastern Africa and West Africa. Research on their business models and

facilitating their development and scaling up will do more to the mechanization efforts of SSA than

spending a lot of resources on designing prototypes which never move beyond the research

workshop or on testing new paradigms developed in far off places.


Box 3: Efficient Tractor Hire Service in Kenya

Mr. Gideon Gitungo Kingangi is a very talented provider of tractor hire services, and he is

also a 9-seater van tour operator. His home is located in Kabete near Nairobi in Kenya where

he owns a field of about 2 acres. He purchased a new 80 hp 4WD tractor with a disc plough

(3 x 660 mm) and a harrow (24 x 560 mm) using credit provided by a tractor distributor

in April 2009. The total cost was about 42 000 USD and a 30 percent down payment was

required. The remainder to be paid back in 2 years at an annual interest rate of 15 percent.

The hiring service starts in Kabete to plough and harrow for maize from November to

January the following year. The tractor then moves to Nyahururu, one of the granary areas in

Kenya for wheat and maize. He needs to transport

his tractor and equipment over 700 km by

hiring a lorry to Lamu for the maize crop. Then he

asks the operators to drive from Lamu to

Taveta near Mt. Kilimanjaro for beans and maize.

The harrow is pulled by the tractor and the

disc plough is mounted on it. The tractor works

continuously in Oloitokitok nearby Taveta

from June to August. The long season is ended in

Kabete in September for maintenance work.

The hire service is provided to farmers if they pay half of the service fee when signing

the contract. The remaining 50 percent is collected on completion of the job. He charges

2 000Ksh (25USD)/acre for ploughing and 1000Ksh/acre for harrowing. He estimates that the

capacity of the tractor is 10 acres/day for ploughing and 15 acres/day for disc harrowing. He

employs two qualified (over 5-years’ experience) operators and pays them 10 percent of the

hire service fee for their work. Additionally, he provides them with meals and accommodation during field

trips.

He believes that he is able to pay back the credit with interest in 2 years. The critical issue is an incentive

for operators to increase the volume of hiring work. There are no problems of spare parts supply and mainte-

nance service, he says. He is willing to purchase a lorry to transport his machines as well as transport hay as a

new business. Estimated gross annual income 2,000,000 Ksh (25 600USD). 1 USD = 78Ksh (May 2010) Sales: 20 000Ksh/day x 250 days/year = 5 000 000Ksh

Fuel cost: 80Ksh/litre x 8litre/acre x 10 acres x 250 = 1 600 000Ksh R&M cost: 500 000Ksh. Operator cost: 750 000Ksh. Other costs: 250 000Ksh

From: Kunihiro, T (2013): Agricultural Mechanization in Development: A Donor’s View. Chapter 12 of Kienzle, Ashburner and Sims (2013).

CONCLUSIONS

54. The SSA region had more tractors in use in 1960 than all the other developing regions of the world

as is evident from the preceding sections. By the end of the 20th century the hand tool technology,

with entire reliance on human muscle power, still dominated land preparation on 65% of the

cultivated. land in SSA with the figure being over 85% of the cultivated land in. Central Africa sub

region [Fig. 7]. It is obvious that the SSA region is the least mechanized in the world. The tractor

remains the most basic machinery for farming and it is unlikely there will be alternatives to it at

least in the coming several decades. SSA needs to find ways of ensuring that majority of its farmers

have access to mechanization services especially for tillage as other regions of the world have done.

The region needs to remain focused and avoid the paradigm shifts which have characterized

mechanization policies and strategies over the past seven decades.

55. An important lesson from the agricultural mechanization experience of other continents is the need

to invest in the training of human resources for mechanization. The training needs to be not only

in the technical and engineering fields but also in entrepreneurial skills. As noted by, among others,

Singh, 2001, the first undergraduate degree program in agricultural engineering was started in 1942

in Allahabad University in India cf. in United Kingdom where the first such programs started in


1965 in Silsoe College and Newcastle University [Gibb,1988]. In addition, India transformed her

educational system for the agricultural sector in the 1950s by establishing several state agricultural

universities which played a pivotal role in the green revolution of the 1960s [Lele, 2012]. The same

transformation occurred in the educational system of the other countries in the Asia region. It is

no wonder therefore that India, is now the largest manufacturer of tractors in the World exporting

the same to all continents [Singh,2013; FAO-RAP, 2014]. In SSA similar transformation of the

educational system started only in the 1970s and a lot still needs to be done, in this regard, for the

region to catch up.

56. During the 1960s and up to the 1990s the supply chain in SSA for tractors and other agricultural

machinery and implements was dominated by European and North America companies [Kurdle,

1975; Burch, 1987]. However, since the turn of the 21st century new players have emerged from the

newly industrialized countries who are now dominating the supply chains for agricultural

machinery and implements in SSA [Agyei-Holmes, 2014; Cabral, 2019]. Countries in SSA may need

to adjust their agricultural mechanization strategies to factor in this new situation. As noted in the

F-SAMA report this may be difficult to many countries in SSA as, on a national basis, the current

market for agricultural machinery and implements is quite small [AUC/FAO, 2018; Mrema et al

2019]. In this respect, to attain economies of scale and scope, a sub-regional approach may need to

be adopted. In key areas like in testing of agricultural machinery and implements a regional

approach may be necessary just as it has happened in Asia with the Asian Network for Testing of

Agricultural Machinery [ANTAM] [FAO-RAP, 2014 & 2015].

57. As has been noted in AUC/FARA, 2018 in a majority of SSA countries, the strongest in-country

capacity for R & D resides in the agricultural engineering departments in the schools of agriculture

and/or engineering of the universities. These departments are responsible for training human

resources in three critical disciplines: agricultural engineering and mechanization; irrigation and

water resources engineering; and post-harvest process engineering. The departments also are the

main units responsible for post-graduate training and research in these areas. Together with the

departments of agribusiness and farm management, they form the critical mass for effective action

within a country, if efficiently enabled. The centres for research in agricultural mechanization and

rural technologies, in countries where they exist, constitute the important country node for any

regional networking in agricultural mechanization. If there is going to be any regional mechanism

for agricultural mechanization, then its primary role should be to facilitate the coordination of

efforts of the national centres to work together in a structured regional network to achieve

economies of scale and scope. The research should focus both on the hardware [new equipment

etc.] as well as the software – the business and institutional mechanisms which can facilitate

optimal and commercial utilization of the hardware.

58. There has been quite some paradigm shift in the agricultural mechanization policies and strategies

of most of the countries in the SSA region. In several cases these shifts have been inspired by

writings and research by external experts. This is unlike in Asia where the capacity for analysis of

the process of and technologies involved in agricultural mechanization development was built in

the 1940s & 50 and hence, they have been able to engage and where necessary critically review and

challenge/engage the external experts with local perspectives on the proposed different paradigms.

With F-SAMA report and institutions such as ACT and AfricaMechanize Platform as well as

PASAE being available to coordinate and facilitate joint research work and discussions on

contemporary mechanization issues progress should be achieved during the coming two to three

decades. There are signs of success in some parts/districts/regions of SSA countries where primary

land preparation is being undertaken on up to 90% of cultivated land by tractors e.g., Northern

Ghana, Central Tanzania the North Rift Districts of Kenya among other areas. These success cases

should be analyzed and lessons drawn from the analysis used for scaling up in other areas. The

AfricaMechanize platform should play a catalytic role in scaling up and propagating such

successful models. ***************************


REFERENCES/BIBLIOGRAPHY

AASR, (2016). Africa Agriculture Status Report, 2016: Progress towards agriculture transformation. [various

chapters]. AGRA. Nairobi. Kenya. ACT. 2015. African Conservation Tillage Network Annual Report 2014. ACT, Nairobi. ACT. 2017. Cropland area under conservation agriculture (CA) in Africa. Report of Executive Secretary ACT. Nairobi,

Kenya. Adams, N. 1988. A new plan for Africa: Development agencies should think big. New Scientist, 118(1619): 89. Adesina, A. 1991. Oxen cultivation in semi-arid West Africa: Profitability analysis in Mali. Agricultural Systems, 38(2):

131–147. Agyei-Holmes, A. (2014). Tilling the Soil in Tanzania: What do Emerging Economies Have to Offer? PhD Dissertation:

International Development Economics: The Open University, UK. August 2014. Alcober, D.I., Cornelius, J., Medland, J., Mrema, G.C., Prayag, S. & Sharrock, G.O. 1983. Agricultural development

and research priorities for a semi-arid area in Kenya. ICRA Bulletin No. 10. Wageningen, Netherlands,

International Centre for development-oriented Research in Agriculture (ICRA). 112 pp. Allan, W. 1970. The development of African farming in Zambia. In A.H. Bunting, ed. Change in agriculture, pp. 393–

402. London, Gerald Duckworth & Co. 813 pp. Amanor, K.S. (2019): Mechanized Agriculture and Medium Scale Farmers in Northern Ghana: A Success of Market

Liberalism or a Product of History Agricultural Policy Research in Africa [APRA]: Paper no WP123. March

2019. Anderson, D.M. & Grove, R., eds. 1987. Conservation in Africa: People, policies and practice. Cambridge University

Press. 355 pp. Anderson, J.R. 1992. Difficulties in African agricultural systems enhancement? Ten hypotheses. Agricultural Systems, 38:

387–409. Anthony, K.R.M (1970) Agricultural Change among the Plateau of Tonga: Zambia in BuntingA.H. (1970) Change in

Agriculture pgs. 403-410. ASAE (1988). American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE). (1988). History of Agricultural Mechanization. St.

Joseph Michigan. USA. Asian Productivity Organization (APO). 1996. Agricultural mechanization in Asia. Report of APO Seminar, 7–17

March 1995, Tokyo. AUC & FAO (2018) Sustainable Agricultural Mechanization: A Framework for Africa. Addis Ababa. 127pp. edited by

Kormawa, P; G. Mrema; N. Mhlanga; M.K. Fynn; J; Kienzle and J. Mpagalile. Lic. CC BY- NC-SA 3.0 IGO. Baker, C.J. & Saxton, K.E. 2006. The ‘What’ and ‘Why’ of no-tillage farming. In Baker et al., No-tillage seeding in

conservation agriculture, pp. 1–10. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK, CABI and FAO. Baker, C.J., Saxton, K.E., Ritchie, W.R., Chamen, W.C.T., Reicosky, D.C., Ribeiro, M.F.S., Justice, S.E. & Hobbs,

P.R. 2006. No-tillage seeding in conservation agriculture. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK, CABI, and FAO. Balis, J.S. 1978. Introducing tractors under twenty-five horsepower to small farms. In Proceedings of Workshop on

Agricultural Technology for Developing Nations: Farm Mechanization Alternatives for 1–10 ha. Farms.

ASAE and the University of Illinois at Urbana. Baudron, F., B. Sims, S. Justice, D. Kahan, R. Rose, S. Mkomwa, P. Kaumbutho, J. Sariah, R. Nazare, G. Moges & B.

Gérard, B. 2015. Re-examining appropriate mechanization in Eastern and Southern Africa: two-wheel tractors,

conservation agriculture, and private sector involvement. Food Security 7(4): 1–16. Bell, M.A., D. Dawe & M.B. Douthwaite. (eds.) 1998. Increasing the impact of engineering in agricultural and rural

development, IRRI Discussion Paper No. 30. Manila, Philippines, IRRI. Bell, Richard. W et al., (2019) Conservation Agriculture for Rice-Based Intensive Cropping by Small-Holders in The Eastern

Gangetic Plains. In Agriculture (2019): (9)(5):1-17 Binswanger, H.P. 1978. The economics of tractors in South Asia: An analytical review. Hyderbad, India, ICRISAT, and

New York, Agricultural Development Council (ADC). Binswanger, H.P. 1986. Agricultural mechanization: A comparative historical perspective. World Bank Research

Observer, 1(1): 27–56. Bishop-Sambrook, C. 2005. Contribution of farm power to sustainable rural livelihoods in sub-Saharan Africa.

Agricultural and Food Engineering Technical Report No. 2. Agricultural Support Systems Division. Rome.

Boserup, E. (1965) The Conditions for Agricultural Growth: The Economics of Agrarian Change under

Population Pressure. Aldine Publishing Co New York 124pgs.


Boshoff, W.H. & Joy, J.L. 1966. Small tractors in small-scale African farming. In J.L. Joy, ed. Symposium on mechanical

cultivation in Uganda, pp. 108–114. Kampala, Makerere University Press. Boshoff, W.H. & Minto, S.L. 1974. Energy requirements and labour bottlenecks and their influence on the choice of

improved equipment. In Westley & Johnston, eds. [1974] Proc. of Workshop on Farming Equipment Innovation

for Agric. Development and Rural Industrialization, Institute for Dev. Studies, University of Nairobi, Kenya.

238 pp. Brader, L. 1994. IITA’s Response to Discussion Essay by Mrema & Odigboh (1993). NAMA Newsletter, 2(1&2):26–

29. Bunting, A.H., ed. 1970. Change in agriculture. Gerard Duckworth & Co. Ltd, London. 813 pp. Burch, P. (1980) Overseas aid and transfer of technology; A case study of Sri Lanka. Sussex University, England.

[unpublished PhD Dissertation]. Burch, P. (1987). Overseas Aid and Transfer of Technology: The Political Economy of Agricultural Mechanization in the

Third World. Harts, UK, Averbury Gower Publishing Co. Byerlee, D. and Husain, T. (1993). Agricultural Research strategies for Favored Marginal Areas: The Experience of Farming

Systems Research in Pakistan. Experimental Agriculture, 29:155-171. Carillon, R. & Le Moigne, M. 1975. The evolution of agricultural equipment in France: Lessons which may be learned from

it for developing countries. In FAO & OECD, Effects of farm mechanization on production and employment,

pp. 279–308. Rome. CGIAR (2013) IS&PC: The Nebraska Declaration on Conservation Agriculture. 2013. IS&PC Rome, Italy. Clarke, L. & Bishop-Sambrook, C. 2002. Farm power – Present and future availability in developing countries.

Presented at the ASAE Annual International Meeting/CIGR World Congress, Chicago, IL. Clayton, E.S. (1973), Mechanization and Employment in East African Agriculture in ILO (1973) Pgs. 19-44. Collier, P. & S. Deacon (2009), African Agriculture in 50 Years: Smallholders in A Rapidly Changing World. Expert

Meeting on How to Feed the World in 2050. ESA Division; FAO, Rome. Italy. Collinson, M (Ed.) (2001) A History of Farming Systems Research FAO, Rome and CABI Publishing Oxford. Commonwealth Secretariat (COMSEC). 1990. Report of Expert Consultation on Agricultural Mechanization in

Commonwealth Africa. Zaria, Nigeria, 13–17 August 1990. London, FPRD, Commonwealth Secretariat. COMSEC. (1991).Agricultural Mechanization Policies and Strategies in Africa: Case Studies from Commonwealth

African Countries: Zaria Nigeria Report 13–17, 1990. COMSEC, London [ed. By G.C. Mrema] Corbeels, M et al 2014 Understanding the Impact and Adoption of Conservation Agriculture in Africa: Multi-scale

Analysis. Agric. Ecosystems & Environment: 187:155-170. Darrity, W.A. (1980) The Boserup Theory of Agricultural Growth: A Model for Anthropological Economics in

J. of Development Economics 7(1980): 137-157 Den Hertog, G. & van Huis, J.A., eds. 1992. The role of draught animal technology in rural development. Proceedings of

International Seminar, 2–12 April 1990, Edinburgh, UK. Wageningen, PPUDOC Scientific Publishers. DeWilde, J.C. 1967. Experiences with agricultural development in tropical Africa. Vol. 1. The Synthesis. Baltimore, Johns

Hopkins University Press for IBRD.

Diao, X; H.Takeshima & X.Zhang (2020): An Evolving Paradigm of Agricultural Mechanization Development:

How much can Africa Learn from Asia? IFPRI, Washington D.C.

https://doi.org/10.2499/9780896293809. Dikshit, A.K & Birthal, P.S. 2010. Environmental value of draught animals: Saving fossil-fuel and prevention of greenhouse

gas emission. Agricultural Economics Research Review, 23(2): 227–232. Dumont, R. 1966. False start in Africa. London, Andrew Deutsch. 328pp. Ehui, S. & Polson, R. (1992). A Review of The Economic and Ecological Constraints of Animal Draught Cultivation in Sub-

Saharan Africa. Soil and Tillage Research, 27:195–210. Eicher, C.K. & Baker, D. (1982), Research on Agricultural Development in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Critical Survey. MSU

International Development Paper Number 1. Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State

University, USA. Eicher, C.K & J.M. Staatz (editors) (1998): International Agricultural Development. The John Hopkins University

Press. Baltimore, MD. 615 pgs. Elliott, J. 1989: Soil Erosion and Conservation in Zimbabwe: Political Economy and the Environment. PhD Thesis;

Loughborough University of Technology, UK. August 1989. Esmay, M.L. & Faidley, L.W. (1972), Agricultural Mechanization and Labor Utilization in Asia. Paper No. 72–530.

America Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph; Michigan, USA. Esmay, M.L. & Faidley, L.W. 1972. Agricultural mechanization and labor utilization in Asia. Paper No. 72–530. St.

Joseph, MI, ASAE.

https://doi.org/10.2499/9780896293809


Ethiopian Agricultural Transformation Agency (EATA). 2015. Annual Report 2015. Addis Ababa. FACASI (2015). Farm Mechanization and Conservation Agriculture for Sustainable Intensification (FACASI)

CIMMYT/AusAID Program in Eastern & Southern Africa: Annual Reports (2014 & 2015) Addis Ababa,

Ethiopia. FACASI. 2015. CIMMYT/AusAID Program in Eastern and Southern Africa: Annual Report 2015. Addis Ababa. FAO & UNIDO. 2009. Agricultural mechanization in Africa: Time for action. Rome, FAO and Vienna, UNIDO. 26 pp.

(also available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/017/k2584e/ k2584e.pdf). FAO & UNIDO. 2010. Agricultural mechanization in sub–Saharan Africa: Time for action. Proceedings of Workshop,

July 2009, Arusha, United Republic of Tanzania. Rome, FAO and Vienna, UNIDO. FAO (1966) Agricultural Development in Nigeria 1965-1980. Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN, Rome,

Italy. FAO, 2015 FAO. 1975. Effects of farm mechanization on production and employment. Report of the Expert Panel held in Rome, 4–7

February 1975. FAO and OECD. 406 pp. FAO. 1981. Agricultural mechanization in development: Guidelines for strategy formulation. FAO Agricultural

Services Bulletin No. 45. Rome. 77 pp. (also available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-be821e.pdf). FAO. 2008. Agricultural mechanization in sub–Saharan Africa: Time for a new look. AGSF Occasional Paper No. 22. Rural

Infrastructure and Agro-Industries Division. Rome, FAO. 54 pp. (also available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-

i0219e.pdf). FAO. 2011. Save and grow – A policymaker’s guide to the sustainable intensification of smallholder crop production. Rome.

(Also available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/ i2215e/i2215e.pdf). FAO. 2013a. Mechanization for rural development: A review of patterns and progress from around the world. ICM Vol. 20.

AGP Division. Rome, FAO. 336 pp. (also available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3259e/i3259e.pdf). FAO. 2013b. Agricultural mechanization in sub-Saharan Africa guidelines for preparing a strategy. Integrated Crop

Management Vol. 22. Plant Production and Protection Division, FAO. Rome. E-ISBN 978-92-5-107763-4.

Rome, FAO. (also available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3349e.pdf). FAO. 2016. Agricultural mechanization, a key for sub-Saharan African smallholder. Integrated Crop Management (ICM

23). Rome. (also available at http:// www.fao.org/3/a-i6044e.pdf). FAO. 2018. Sustainable agricultural mechanization for agricultural transformation in sub-Saharan Africa. Paper presented

at the First International Conference of the Pan-African Society for Agricultural Engineering (PASAE),

Nairobi, Kenya, 25–28 March 2018. FAO. RAP (2015). A regional strategy for sustainable agricultural mechanization: Sustainable mechanization across agri-

food chains in Asia and the Pacific Region. FAO-RAP Publication No. 2014/24. 74 pp. (also available at

http://www.fao.org/3/a- i4270e.pdf). FAO-RAP. 2014. Report of the High-Level Multi-Stakeholder Consultation on Sustainable Agricultural Mechanization

Strategy (SAMA) for the Asia and the Pacific Region convened by FAO and UNESCAP/CSAM, Bangkok, 26–27

June 2014. Bangkok, FAO-RAP. 84 pp. FARA. 2014. Science Agenda for Agriculture in Africa (S3A): “Connecting Science” to transform agriculture in Africa.

Accra, Ghana, FARA. Farrington, J., Abeyratne, F. & Gill, G.J., eds. 1982. Farm power and employment in Asia: Performance and prospects.

Proceedings of Regional Seminar, 25–29 October 1982, Colombo, Sri Lanka. Bangkok, ADC. Fluck, R.C. & Baird, C.D. 1979. Agricultural energetics. Westport, CT, AVI Publishing Co. Friedrich, T. & Kassam, A. 2012. No-till farming and the environment: Do no-till systems require more chemicals?

Outlooks on Pest Management. (available at DOI:10.1564/23aug02) Friedrich, T. (2013). Agricultural mechanization and the environment. In FAO (2013). Mechanization for rural

development: A review of patterns and progress from around the world. Int. Crop Man, Vol. 20, pp. 181–

204. Rome, FAO. Gabre-Madhin, E.Z. & Haggblade, S. 2004. Successes in African agriculture: Results of an expert survey. World

Development, 32(5): 745–766. Gemmill, G. & Eicher, C.K. 1973. A framework for research on the economics of farm mechanization in developing countries.

MSU African Rural Employment Paper, No. 6. East Lansing, MI, Michigan State University. Ghana, Government of (1962) First Ghana Seven Year Development Plan1963-69. Ministry of Economic Planning, Accra.

Ghana. Gibb, A.C. 1988. Agricultural engineering perspective – Celebration of Golden Jubilee 1938–88. Published by Institution

of Agricultural Engineers. West End Road, Silsoe, Bedford, UK.

http://www.fao.org/docrep/017/k2584e/

http://www.fao.org/3/a-be821e.pdf

http://www.fao.org/3/

http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/

http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3259e/i3259e.pdf

http://www.fao.org/3/a-

http://www.fao.org/3/a-i6044e.pdf

http://www.fao.org/3/a-


Giles, G.W. (1975). The Reorientation of Agricultural Mechanization for the Developing Countries: Policies and Attitudes

for Action Programs. In FAO/OECD (1975) Effects of Farm Mechanization on Production and Employment

pgs. 71-90. FAO Rome Italy. Giles, G.W. 1966. Agricultural power and equipment. In The world food problems, Vol. III. A report of the President’s

Advisory Committee, pp. 175–216. Washington, DC. Gohlich. 1984. The development of tractors and other agricultural vehicles. Journal of Agricultural Engineering, 29: 3–

16. Academic Press. Gordon, J. 1970. State farms in Ghana: The political deformation of agricultural development. In Bunting, ed. Change in

agriculture pp. 577–584. London, Gerald Duckworth & Co. 813 pp. Hall, M. 1968. Mechanization planning in East Africa. In G.H. Helleiner, ed. Agricultural planning in East Africa.

Nairobi, East Africa Publishing House. Holtkamp, R. 1988. Catalogue: Tractors 10–35 hp. Special Publication No. 211. Eschborn, Germany, GTZ. 138 pp. Holtkamp, R.G., (1989) “Small 4-Wheel Tractors for the Tropics and Sub-Tropics”. Margraf Scientific Publishers,

Weikersheim (FRG). 242 Pgs. Holtkamp, R.G., (1991). Small Four-Wheel Tractors for the Tropics and Subtropics: Their Role in Agricultural and

Industrial Development. In Mrema, G.C. (ed) (1991): P. 217–249. Hunt, D.R. (1983). Farm Power and Machinery Management. Iowa State University press, Ames, Iowa. IBRD. (1987): Agricultural Mechanization: Issues and Options A World Bank Study, Washington D.C. prepared by

Hans Binswanger & Graham Donovan with assistance of Raymond Fabre. ISSN0258-2120. 85 pgs. IBRD (1989) Sub Saharan Africa: From Crisis to Sustainable Development: A long Term Perspective World Bank,

Washington DC. 300pgs. IFPRI (2016). Agricultural mechanization and agricultural transformation. Edited by Diao, X., J. Silver, and H.

Takeshima IFPRI Discussion Paper 1527. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute. IFPRI. 2020. Small survey of power tiller owners in Kpong irrigation scheme, Ghana. [CD]. IFPRI, Washington, DC. ILO. (1973). Mechanization and Employment in Agriculture: Case Studies from Four Continents. Geneva, Switzerland.

International Labour Organization. IBRD (1960. The economic development of Tanganyika. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development

(IBRD). 1960 Baltimore, MD, Johns Hopkins University Press. IRRI. (1983). Consequences of Small-Farm Mechanization. IRRI & ADC Publication 184 Pgs. Manila, Philippines. Jacks, G.V. (1942) Prospects for Soil Conservation. The East African Agricultural Journal: Vol. 8(2): pgs. 71-73. October 1942. Kates, R.W., McKay, J. & Berry, L. 1969. Twelve new settlements in Tanzania: A comparative study of success. Dar es

Salaam, Bureau of Resource Assessment and Land Use Planning, University College. 62 pp. Kaul, R.N. 1991. Agricultural mechanization in Africa: Overview of main issues. In G.C. Mrema, ed (1991) Agricultural

mechanization policies and strategies in Africa: Case studies from Commonwealth African countries, pp.

29–42. Kayombo, B. & G.C. Mrema (1998). Soil Conservation and Sustainability of Agricultural Systems in Sub-Saharan Africa

in Lal, R (editor) (1998): Soil Quality and Agricultural Sustainability. Ann Arbor Press; Chelsea, MI 48118;

USA. Pgs. pgs. 177-197 Chapter 12. Khan, A.U. 1972. Agricultural mechanization: The tropical farmer’s dilemma. World Crops, 24(4): 208–213. Kienzle, J; J.E. Ashburner & B.G. Sims (editors) (2013). Mechanization for Rural Development: A review of patterns and

progress from around the world. AGP Division - ICM - Vol.20 - 2013; FAO Rome, Italy. 336 pgs. Kinsey, B.H. & I. Ahmed (1984). Farm Equipment Innovations in Eastern, Central and Southern Africa Gower

Publishing Company Hampshire, UK, 345 pgs. Kjoerby, F. 1983. Problems and contradictions in the development of ox cultivation in Tanzania. Research Report No. 66.

Uppsala, Sweden, Scandinavian Institute of African Studies. 164 pp. Kline, C.K., Green, D., Donahue, R.L. & Stout, B.A. (1969). Agricultural Mechanization in Equatorial Africa. Research

Report Number 6. Michigan State University. Kolawole, M.I. 1972. An economic study of tractor contracting operations in Western Nigeria. Agricultural Economics,

Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. (PhD dissertation) Kolawole, M.I. (1974). Economic Aspects of Private Tractor Operations in the Savanna Zone of Western Nigeria. Journal

of Agricultural Engineering Research, 19(4): 401–10. Kormawa, P. 2015. Sending the hoe to the museum: Promoting sustainable agricultural mechanization in Africa. Africa

Policy Review, 2018 [online. http://africapolicyreview.com/sending-the-hoe-to-the-museum-promoting-

sustainable-agricultural-mechanization-in-africa/ Kosura-Oluoch, W. 1983. An economic analysis of small farm mechanization in Western Province, Kenya. Cornell

University, Ithaca, NY. (PhD thesis)


Kunihiro, T (2013). Agricultural Mechanization in Development; A Donors view. Chapter 12 of Kienzle, J; J.E. Ashburner

& B.G. Sims (editors) (2013). 229-252pgs FAO-Rome. Kurdle, R.T. 1975. Agricultural tractors: A world industry study. Cambridge, MA, Ballinger Publishing Co. Lal, R. (editor) (1998). Soil Quality and Agricultural Sustainability. Ann Arbor Press; Chelsea, MI 48118; USA. 378 Pgs. Lantin, R. 2013. Information exchange and networking: The RNAM experience. In FAO 2013. Mechanization for rural

development: A review of patterns and progress from around the world. ICM Vol. 20, Ch. 16. Rome, FAO. Lele, U. 1976. Tractors and ox plows in Africa. In Development Digest, 14(1): Jan.1976 Washington, DC, USAID. Lele, U. 2012. East Africa agriculture after 50 years of independence. Keynote presentation to ASARECA/Kilimo Trust

Workshop, December 2012, Kampala, Uganda. Kilimo Trust and EAC. Lord, R.F. 1963. Economic aspects of mechanized farming at Nachingwea, Tanganyika. London, HMSO. Lweshya, E. M. (2015). Utilization of Tractors in Mbarali Distriict, Tanzania. MSc Dissertation; Dept. Engineering

Sciences and Technology, SUA; Morogoro Tanzania Maher, C. (1950). Soil Conservation in Kenya Colony: Part 1 Factors Affecting Erosion, Soil Characteristics and Methods of

Conservation; Part II: Conservation Practice: Organization and Legislation: Present Position and Outlook. In the

Empire Journal of Experimental Agriculture: Vol. XVIII (1950): No. 71:137-149; No. 72: 233-248. Maina, J.W. & J.D. MacArthur (1970) Land Settlement in Kenya in Bunting, A.(1970) Change in Agriculture. Pg 423-

436. Makanjuola, G.A., Abimbola, T.O. & Anazodo, U.G.N. 1991. Agricultural mechanization policies and strategies in

Nigeria. In G.C. Mrema, ed. Agricultural mechanization policies and strategies in Africa, pp. 99–120. Makhijani, A. & Poole, A.C. 1975. Energy and agriculture in the Third World. USA, Ballinger Publishing Co. 168 pp Maravanyika, S. 2013: Soil Conservation and White Agrarian environment in Colonial Zimbabwe. C. 1908-1980. PhD

Thesis, University of Pretoria, Dept of History and Heritage Studies, September 2013. Mayne, J.E., (1954). Progress in the Mechanization of Farming in the Colonial Territories. Tropical Agriculture, 31 (3) 178–187. Mayne, J.E. (1955). Progress in the Mechanization of Farming in the Colonial Territories. Tropical Agriculture, 32 (3) 95–

9. Mayne, J.E. 1956. Progress in the Mechanization of Farming in the Colonial Territories. Tropical Agriculture, 33(4): 272–

277. Mazoyer, M. & L. Roidart. (2006). A History of World Agriculture: From Neolithic Age to the Current Crisis. Earthscan.

London. 510pgs. Mellor, J (1998) Agriculture on the Road to Industrialization; in Eicher & Staatz (eds) (1998) International Agricultural

Development pgs. 136-154. Misra, S.M. (1991). Formulation and Implementation of Agricultural Mechanization Policies in India. In Mrema. (ed)

(1991). Agricultural mechanization policies and strategies in Africa pg. 189–216. Moens, A & A.H.J, Siepman (editors) (1984); Development of Agricultural Machinery Industry in Developing Countries.

Proc, of International Conference Jan 1984. PUDOC, Wageningen 400pgs. Morris, J. (1986). Estimation of Tractor Repair and Maintenance Costs. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research.

Vol. 41, pg., 191 – 200. Morrison, K. D. (2006). Typological Schemes and Agricultural Change: Beyond Boserup in Pre Colonial South India in

Current Anthropology: 37(4):583-608. Aug 2006. Mpanduji, S.M. (2000). Repair Cost of Tractors and Comparison of Mechanization Strategies Under Tanzanian Conditions.

PhD Dissertation, Technical University of Munich, Germany. Mrema, G.C.; D.G Kahan, & A. Agyei-Holmes (2020) Agricultural Mechanization in Tanzania in Diao et al (2020)

<. https://doi.org/10.2499/9780896293809 > IFPRI pgs.457-496. Mrema, G.C. (Editor) (1991). Agricultural Mechanization Policies and Strategies in Africa: Case Studies from

Commonwealth African Countries. London, UK. Commonwealth Secretariat Publications. 313pgs. Mrema, G.C. 2016. A report of a scoping study on information on impact of agricultural mechanization interventions in

Tanzania under ASDP1 – 2005/15: Designing elements of an impact study. Dar es Salaam, RESAPAC/PAPAC –

ILRI and Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security. 86 pp. Mrema, G.C.; J. Kienzle & J. Mpagalile (2018) Current status and future prospects of agricultural mechanization in Sub-

Saharan Africa [SSA] in AMA – Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America vol.49 no.2

(2018):13-30. Muchiri G; C.J. Mbara & C.O. Mwanda (1991), Agricultural Mechanization Policies and Strategies in Kenya in

Mrema, G.C (editor) (1991) Agricultural Mechanization Policies and Strategies in Africa pg. 77-98. Nag, P.K. & Pradhan, C.K. 1992. Ergonomics in the hoeing operation. International Journal Industrial Ergonomics, (Special

issue: Agricultural ergonomics) 10: 341–350. Nwuba, E.I.U. & Kaul, R.N. 1986. The effect of working posture on the Nigerian hoe farmer. Journal of Agricultural

Engineering Research, 33: 179–185. London, Academic Press.

https://doi.org/10.2499/9780896293809


Okali C; G.C. Mrema & S.Sefe Dedeh(1996) Centre Commissioned External Review Report to Project No. 9

Improving Post Harvest Systems: Report to the Chairman Board of Trustees, International Institute of

Tropical Agriculture (IITA) 46 pgs, Ibadan, Nigeria. Oluwasami, H.A. 1975. Effects of farm mechanization on production and employment in Nigeria. In FAO/OECD (1975)

Effects of farm mechanization on production and employment, pp. 51–70. Rome, FAO and OECD. Panin, A. 1994. Empirical evidence of mechanization effects on smallholder crop production systems in Botswana.

Agricultural Systems, 47: 199–210. Passmore, R. & Durnin, J.V.G.A. 1955. Human energy expenditure. Physiology Reviews, 35: 801–840. Pingali, P.L., Bigot, Y. & Binswanger, H.P. (1987). Agricultural Mechanization and the Evolution of Farming in Sub-

Saharan Africa. Johns Hopkins University Press for the World Bank, Baltimore, MD. 216pgs. Promsberger, W.J. (1976). A History of Progress in Mechanization. Paper No. 76-1046.American Society of Agric.

Engineers. St. Josephs. Chapter 24. Reardon, 1998 African Agriculture: Productivity and Sustainability Issues in Eicher & Staatz (eds)(1998)

International Agricultural Development pgs. 444-457 Rijk, A.G. 1983. Role of agricultural mechanization in Asia. ADB Staff Study Paper, October. Manila, Agricultural

Services Department, Asian Development Bank.October 1983. 61 pgs. Rijk, A.G. 1989. Agricultural mechanization policy and strategy: The case of Thailand. Wageningen Agricultural

University. (PhD dissertation) Rowland, J.W. 1974. The conservation ideal: Being the SARCUSS record for the period 1970–80. SARCUSS, Private Bag

X116, Pretoria. 368 pp. Rowland, J.W., (1994), “The Conservation Ideal: The Third Decade: Being the SARCUSS Record for the Period 1970-1980.

SARCUSS, Private Bag X116, Pretoria, S. Africa (1994), 387 Pgs. Ruthernberg, H. (1980) Farming Systems in the Tropics Oxford. Clarendon Press Ruthernberg, H. 1964. Agricultural development in Tanganyika. Berlin-Spinger-Verlag.

Ruttan, V.W. (1998) Constraints to the Design of Sustainable Systems of Agricultural Production in Eicher &

Staatz (eds) (1998) International Agricultural Development pgs431-443. Sarma, J.S. (1982), Agricultural Policy in India: Growth with Equity. Ottawa, Canada. IDRC. Science 333 (6042) (July

29):616-20. Seager, P.J. & Fieldson, R.S., (1984). Public Tractor Hire and Equipment Hire Schemes in Developing Countries. Research

Unit Report, No. ARU 30. World Bank, Washington D.C. Shetto, R. & S. Mkomwa (2021). Agricultural Machinery Hire Services Provision in Central Tanzania

Districts of Kiteto, Kongwa and Mvomero. African Conservation Tillage Network (ACT). Nairobi

Kenya [In press] Shetto, R. (2019). Tractor Hire Services in Kongwa, Kiteto and Mvomero Districts, A Report submitted to African

Conservation Tillage [ACT] Network, Nairobi. December 2019. Simalenga, T.E. & Have, H., (1992). Estimation of Soil Tillage Workdays in Semi-Arid areas. Journal of Agricultural

Engineering Research. Vol. 51, 1992. Simalenga, T.E., (1989). Simulation Model to Predict Field Workdays and Its Use in Machinery Selection Under Tropical

Conditions. Copenhagen, Denmark: Unpublished PhD Thesis, Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Royal

Veterinary and Agricultural University. Singh, G. (1998), Production and Use of Tractors in India. In M.A. Bell, D. Dawe & M.B. Douthwaite, (eds) (1998). pgs

49–59 [IRRI]. Singh, G. (2001). Relationship between Mechanization and Agricultural Productivity in Various Parts of India. In

Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa And Latin America, 32(2), Spring 2001. Singh, G., (2013). Agricultural Mechanization in India. In: Mechanization for Rural Development: A Review of

Patterns and Progress from Around the World- J. Kienzle, J.E. Ashburner, and B.G. Sims, Eds. Integrated

Crop Management Vol. 20-2013. FAO. ISSN 1020-4555. Stanhill, G., (1984). Agricultural Labour: From Energy Source to Sink Chapter 6 of Stanhill, (ed) (1984): Energy and

Agriculture; Springer-Verlag, Berlin 1984. Stanhill. G. (1992). Agricultural Labour: From energy source to sink. In R.C. Fluck, ed. Energy in farm production.

Energy in world agriculture. Vol. 6. Amsterdam, Elsevier Science. Starkey, P. (1988). Animal-Drawn Wheeled Tool Carriers: Perfected Yet Rejected. Braunschweig, Germany, Vieweg,

Deutscheszentrum Fur Entwicklungs technologien. 1988. Starkey, P. (Ed). (1998). Integrating Mechanization into Strategies for Sustainable Agriculture. Technical Centre for

Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA), Wageningen.


Starkey, P. 1986. Appropriate technology for Africa: An evaluation with suggestions for future initiatives. Consultancy

Report. Ottawa, Canada, IDRC. 34 pp. Starkey, P. 1988b. Animal traction directory: Africa. German Organization for Technical Cooperation (GTZ),

Eschborn. Stevenson, J.R.; Seraj, R. & Cassman, K.G. (2014) Response to Comments on ‘Evaluating Conservation Agriculture for

Small-scale Farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment.

196(2014)112-113. Stout, B.A. 1979. Energy for world agriculture. Agricultural Series Vol. 7. Rome, FAO. Swynnerton, R.J.M. 1954. A plan for intensification of African agriculture in Kenya. Nairobi, Government Printer. TAMS (2005) Tanzania Agricultural Mechanization Strategy Ministry of Agri. & Food Security Dar es Salaam Tandon, S.K. 2007. Conservation agriculture policy – Perspectives and future scope. International Conference on

Advances in Environment Research (ICAER), India, and APCAEM. (Essay) TSAE (1972): Tanzania Society of Agricultural Engineers (TSAE). 1972. Proceedings of Annual Conference, Morogoro.

Morogoro, United Republic of Tanzania. Taylor, D.B. 1992. Resource allocation and productivity of cereal state farms in Ethiopia. Agric. Economics, 8(3): 187–197. Tiffen, M., Mortimore, M. & Gichuki, F. 1994. More people, less erosion. Environmental recovery in Kenya. New York,

John Wiley & Sons Publishers. TSAE. (1973, 1974). Proceedings of Annual Conferences of 1973 & 1974 held in Morogoro; Moshi and Mwanza

Respectively. TSAE, Morogoro, Tanzania. Twum, A. & Gyarteng, O.K. 1991. Agricultural mechanization in Ghana: An overview in Mrema,G.C. Editor 1991

Agricultural mechanization policies and strategies in Africa. Pgs.59-76. White, W.A, (2001). The Unsung Hero: The Farm Tractor’s Contribution to the 20th Century USA Economic Growth in J.

Economic History 61/02/493-496. White, W.A. (2000). The Unsung Hero: The Farm Tractor’s Contribution to the 20th Century USA Economic Growth. PhD

Dissertation, Department of Economic History, Ohio State University, Columbus 127 Pgs. Willcocks, T.J. & Twomlow, S.J. 1992. A review of tillage methods and soil and water conservation in Southern Africa.

Soil and Tillage Research, 27: 73–94. Wood, A. 1950. The groundnut affair. UK, Bodley Head. Yeboah, F.K. & Jayne, T.S. 2016. Africa’s evolving employment structure. International Development Working Paper.

Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA.

***************************************


ANNEX

FIGURE 8: ‘R’-RUTHERNBERG NUMBER

.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Nigeria

Tanzania

Ghana

Ethiopia

Kenya

SSA excluding Republic of South Africa

South Asia

Southeast Asia

Paradigm Shifts and the Development of Agricultural ...

Documents

Transcript of Paradigm Shifts and the Development of Agricultural ...